WWI Artillery

[Doppler]

Hello, you may or may not know that I'm a the senior designer behind an up-coming World War I video game and one of my jobs being the programmer is to be able to give my artists the freedom of artistic historical accuracy ( AHC ). Now, you are able to use artillery in the game, however I'm wanting to hear what people deem appropriate in the sense of how many shells were shot, damage output ( range/wide-birth on impact ) and generally peoples opinions on how such a huge element should be portrayed.

Looking forward to hearing from you!

[truthergw]

A whole life could be devoted to learning about the ins and outs of WW1 artillery. I think you'll have to settle for a representation resting on a random wobble added to calculated results.

[centurion]

I'm wanting to hear what people deem appropriate in the sense of how many shells were shot, damage output (range/wide-birth on impact ) and generally peoples opinions on how such a huge element should be portrayed.

You need to be much much more precise in terms of the scenario. Are you talking about a major offensive before which guns of all types might be assembled and ammunition stock piled or are you talking about a minor action - say a large trench raid? What period of the war is concerned? 1914 -1916 when the ratio of high explosive to shrapnel fired by the British was much lower than later (and there was an ammunition famine and deficiencies in HE fuses)? 1918 when the use of tanks, target acquisition techniques, improved artillery techniques etc had caused tactics to move away from the mass days long barrages of the mid war years in response to the needs of surprise and an 'all arms' battle. Which armies are involved (the arsenal used was different)? Are artillery spotting techniques (from balloon and aeroplane) involved? and so on and so on. I don't intend to be rude or anything but I think your question somewhat simplistic.

[Doppler]

I agree, but it's the effects that it would have caused is my priority; I've been going back through my old film collection and watched numerous films namely "Joyeux Noel" from 2005, in the film there's a section of the horrific 'last' fight the men do, truly a gripping section to the film;

However, the rest of the team agreed that the Artillery displayed here

isn't that convincing at all; surely something with intense force would murder the ground it impacts on causing ground clutter and deep craters? I know that it may be dependant on surfaces and I haven't had chance to test/see the artillery for itself ( which I plan to do next February ).

So, would you suggest that the explosion themselves are different explosion radius and damage effects depending on surface?

[centurion]

I agree, but it's the effects that it would have caused is my priority; I've been going back through my old film collection and watched numerous films namely "Joyeux Noel" from 2005, in the film there's a section of the horrific 'last' fight the men do, truly a gripping section to the film;

However, the rest of the team agreed that the Artillery displayed here

isn't that convincing at all; surely something with intense force would murder the ground it impacts on causing ground clutter and deep craters? I know that it may be dependant on surfaces and I haven't had chance to test/see the artillery for itself ( which I plan to do next February ).

So, would you suggest that the explosion themselves are different explosion radius and damage effects depending on surface?

At the early period shown in the clip much of the artillery fire in response to an assault would be fused for airbursts to spread shrapnel or shell splinters around and mow down attackers in the open. The attacker's artillery would have ceased fire before the assault began (or would be shelling rear areas to stop reinforcements coming up) and the defender's would not be dropping big HE rounds so close to their own front lines. The firing of heavy stuff that left big craters and pulverised trenches would have taken place before the attack began in the initial bombardment when everyone was hunkering down in the trenches and dug outs and wishing it would stop.

By 1918 with much more precise artillery, lifting and creeping barrages, the ability to hit enemy artillery with the first shots (without registration). The use of gas to neutralise artillery etc etc it would be a different scenario again.

[T8HANTS]

So, would you suggest that the explosion themselves are different explosion radius and damage effects depending on surface?

I would imagine the difference between saturated and frozen ground for the same calibre shell would be quite marked. The deeper the shell can bury itself the more reduced the effect and the more reduced the radius that fragments can reach. Conversly if the ground is hard frozen hardly any of the shells explosive energy would be expended in excavating craters, but would allow much greater blast area, and more fragments to fly further. Likewise the higher up a shrapnel shell bursts, the more time for the impetus of the bullets to decay, but they would cover a wider area, with more space in between.

G

[centurion]

So, would you suggest that the explosion themselves are different explosion radius and damage effects depending on surface?

I would imagine the difference between saturated and frozen ground for the same calibre shell would be quite marked. The deeper the shell can bury itself the more reduced the effect and the more reduced the radius that fragments can reach. Conversly if the ground is hard frozen hardly any of the shells explosive energy would be expended in excavating craters, but would allow much greater blast area, and more fragments to fly further. Likewise the higher up a shrapnel shell bursts, the more time for the impetus of the bullets to decay, but they would cover a wider area, with more space in between.

G

The fuzing would be more important. What was the intention of the artillery fire? Shells fired into no mans land to clear wire etc before an attack would be set to explode either before impact or immediately on first touch so as to maximise the blast effect and minimise cratering (which could impede the attack). Shells fired during an attack would be time fuzed so as to give an airburst of shrapnel balls or shell fragments (not so cinematic but killed a lot more soldiers that way). Shells fired before an attack on the enemy's trenches (to destroy defences, kill, wound or demoralise troops in trenches and dugouts) might even have a time delay on impact to maximise the damage done.

[squirrel]

Also very little flame associated with a bursting shell. Flash only not a minor conflagration. Smoke of different hues of grey, yellow, black or white, depending on size of shell, explosive used etc. Lots of variations.

[Doppler]

I see, and I take no offence centurion, I'm very much interested in the historical factors and would rather know the truth so we can replicate it's effect. It's that I can't talk too much about the game side of ideas that's all. We didn't just want something that fired from down the sky to the ground doing a locked amount of damage and a specific radius. So, my query is that in fights through-out 1914 - 1918, did the Artillery change, from what I read, Shrapnel because a major effector on the battlefield. So far from the knowledge I've been presented I have these ideas.

- Specific Artillery radius, shrapnel and effects depending on the year the battle happened

- Soldiers can have significant amounts of damage from shrapnel

- Artillery can destroy trench areas

"The deeper the shell can bury itself the more reduced the effect and the more reduced the radius that fragments can reach" This interested me a lot, and in theory seems very logical to have.

We're also trying to figure out a mechanic for the Officer class, so that marking Artillery is slightly more tactical minded; any thoughts on this would be great. Our original idea is that the Officer can use a telescope/binoculars to view where enemy soldiers are and open his map to place markers on the areas he wants the artillery to hit; we're just not sure this seems 'fun', I don't mean to upset people by stating the word fun, but understand from my point of view I have to make the player feel he's enjoying the role.

[T8HANTS]

"The deeper the shell can bury itself the more reduced the effect and the more reduced the radius that fragments can reach" This interested me a lot, and in theory seems very logical to have.

To see this effect try and find on you tube the footage of the bombing of the town of Monte Casino, there because the bombs are landing into the softer soils of the valley bottom the explosion goes almost straight up. If you then watch the bombing of the monestry and mountain there the blast effect is much wider because the mountain rock reduced penetration.

G

[centurion]

I see, and I take no offence centurion, I'm very much interested in the historical factors and would rather know the truth so we can replicate it's effect. It's that I can't talk too much about the game side of ideas that's all. We didn't just want something that fired from down the sky to the ground doing a locked amount of damage and a specific radius. So, my query is that in fights through-out 1914 - 1918, did the Artillery change, from what I read, Shrapnel because a major effector on the battlefield. So far from the knowledge I've been presented I have these ideas.

- Specific Artillery radius, shrapnel and effects depending on the year the battle happened

- Soldiers can have significant amounts of damage from shrapnel

- Artillery can destroy trench areas

"The deeper the shell can bury itself the more reduced the effect and the more reduced the radius that fragments can reach" This interested me a lot, and in theory seems very logical to have.

We're also trying to figure out a mechanic for the Officer class, so that marking Artillery is slightly more tactical minded; any thoughts on this would be great. Our original idea is that the Officer can use a telescope/binoculars to view where enemy soldiers are and open his map to place markers on the areas he wants the artillery to hit; we're just not sure this seems 'fun', I don't mean to upset people by stating the word fun, but understand from my point of view I have to make the player feel he's enjoying the role.

As I've tried to indicate artillery and the way it was used changed considerably during the course of the war. Conventional shrapnel became less and less used and was replaced with high explosive that blasted shell splinters around - this is today erroneously called shrapnel! Traditional shrapnel shell burst ejecting balls that traveled in a widening cone along the trajectory of the shell. HE shell bursts are more commplex. The whole idea of anti personel fire was not to have the shell bury itself. The type of artillery use you describe only became possible with the introduction of infantry support guns later in the war (and mainly by the Germans). Infantry officers could request ordinary artillery support but there was a complex system of control and communications (which evolved throughout the war)

[Doppler]

One note I wanted to add, my area of knowledge base is rather 'low' on this this subject, but you remarked on Spotting techniques with aeroplanes? Now, I'm not too certain but weren't they used later on through-out the war? Because at the moment, when the officer marks spots, the ground has an emitting smoke to indicate markers for artillery, this isn't historically accurate at all and I would much prefer something replicated from the actual war; any input on this would be great.

And yes, thanks for clearing that up about the Shrapnel.

[kenneth505]

The deeper the shell can bury itself the more reduced the effect and the more reduced the radius that fragments can reach" This interested me a lot, and in theory seems very logical to have.

Depending on how realistic you're attempting to make it you'll need to consider ground factors carefully. There are reports from the Ypres area that at times the ground was so muddy shells entering did little or no damage. (Edmund Blunden's Memoirs of War to name one).

Also you may want to consider adding a variable for shell production techniques. Early the percentage of shells that were duds was often quite high, some might say criminally high.

A decent visual display of the effects of artillery can be obtained near the end of the Canadian movie Passchendaele - (regardless of the rest of the movie.)

The aerial shots of the battlefields in the salient in Peter Barton Passchendaele the hardcover version at least are amazing.

[kenneth505]

err... Undertones of War, not Memoirs. Sorry.

[Doppler]

Well it's really easy for us to make it so Shells re-act differently to different surfaces, so I can make it realistic to the extent that YPres for example would have a less damage radius.

I agree Passchendaele had a fantastic ending battle scene. Something my artists really look into was that particular scene.

[centurion]

One note I wanted to add, my area of knowledge base is rather 'low' on this this subject, but you remarked on Spotting techniques with aeroplanes? Now, I'm not too certain but weren't they used later on through-out the war? Because at the moment, when the officer marks spots, the ground has an emitting smoke to indicate markers for artillery, this isn't historically accurate at all and I would much prefer something replicated from the actual war; any input on this would be great.

And yes, thanks for clearing that up about the Shrapnel.

I feel that there is a confusion in some of the discussion between shelling as part of the preparation for an attack and shelling during an attack (as well as what might be called routine daily shelling (what was generally called the "daily strafe"). In the build up to an over the top general attack there would be a barrage. By the time of the Somme and 3rd Ypres this could take days even weeks and involve thousands of artillery pieces of all sizes. Contrary to some popular belief this was not just a mass of guns blasting away in the general direction of the enemy. Different guns had assigned tasks and targets. Some would concentrate on clearing away the barbed wire (a vital job - in one of the last actions on the Somme in which my grandfather took part his battalion [RDF] sustained more than 50% casualties before even reaching the German front line trenches when they got stuck in uncleared wire and came under machine gun fire). For wire clearing high explosive became the norm relying on blast effect and the shells were fused to explode without first burying them selves (in the early years of the war the British used shrapnel for wire cutting, there is still some controversy as how effective (or perhaps ineffective ) this was. By 1918 tanks were increasingly used instead of artillery to clear wire by crushing and dragging. Other artillery was assigned the task of destroying the enemy's trenches, roads, dugouts etc It is during this that substantial cratering occurs and ground condition and structure becomes anything of an issue. I think that frozen ground other than in arctic conditions where there is a deep permafrost is not an issue (unless one is using grazing fuses) as a shell will punch through this. The structure of the ground is much more important. Rocky terrain will indeed cause rock splinters etc whilst deep clay will cause large scale cratering (and if the drainage is poor extreme bogginess as at Passchendaele (3rd Ypres). Other fire will be directed at the enemy's artillery (counter battery fire). However during the first years of the war most of this ceased during an actual attack (which is what I believe is what your game is intending to replicate) as artillery accuracy was not that good (and the positions of one's own troops was sufficiently uncertain) and what today is called 'friendly fire' was very possible. What shelling was still taking place was either away from the assault area (and therefore outside the scope of your game) or was defensive fire against the assaulting troops. This tended to be either shrapnel or airburst HE which was deadly to troops out in the open (the attackers) but from which troops in trenches (the defenders) were in some degree protected. This does not cause the sort of explosions shown in the video clip.

For obvious reasons men were not taking photos at the time but these two artist's impressions do give a (dramatised) idea

http://www.directart.co.uk/mall/images/800s/dhm1666.jpg

http://www.directart.co.uk/mall/images/800s/dhm1664.jpg

Most of the explosions are taking place above ground.

Later in the war as artillery skills and techniques became more reliable the attackers could be supported by artillery fire during the attack so that shells could be falling on the enemy's front line trench even as the attackers were still crossing no man's land and then the barrage would lift to the enemy's support trenches. In this case HE exploding on contact would tend to be used (as more effective against men in trenches) although air burst might be used further back to prevent the enemy bringing up a counter-attack across the top.

Whilst the use of aircraft to guide artillery was already being practiced before WW1 (first used from aeroplanes in the Italo Turkish war) it really took off (pardon the unintended pun) from about 1916, however mainly to direct guns in counter battery fire or against specific targets and probably outside the scope of your game. What may be relevant was the use of contact patrols (in which aircraft reported the position of troops in an attack so that the guns knew where not to fire but also relayed simple requests of the type "machine gun in that direction please deal with" (given that truly portable wireless was yet to be devised such signals were made using visual signals and had to be basic). This might result in artillery fire (or possibly in 1918 bomb armed Sopwith Camels) Contact patrols started in 1915 but didn't become a real factor until mid 1916. Allied to these were counter attack prevention flights using aircraft (often wireless equipped) to spot enemy counter attacks and call down artillery fire on them. This is a complex subject and one cannot do justice in a short post

[T8HANTS]

Any chance of including Gallipoli and Palestine as scenarios. Oh the chance to see if I can win Gallipoli, or massacre the Light Horse as it creasts the hill charging Beersheba. For some of us the western front is a bit Ho Hum!

G

[Rob Connolly]

Doppler, just to make your job a bit more difficult, you might also consider gas and smoke shells. Gas was an area weapon, used to suppress rather than kill the enemy; if you suppressed your opposition's artillery batteries with a deluge of gas shells, then you suffered far less from his fire during your attack, or defence. Smoke was used to blind the enemy, so that their firing at an attack from either flank or the front became less effective. Oh, smoke and gas were used in combination together, and with HE and shrapnel.

A useful analogue of shrapnel would be a giant shotgun shell; shrapnel bullets were deadly against enemy troops out in the open, but pretty useless against anyone under cover, as a shotgun blast would be against a victim standing on a front garden or hiding behind a brick wall.

As the war progressed, the amount of artillery present increased, but what became vital was how it was organised and operated. In 1914 a British division might have 13 pounder guns, 18 pounder guns and a handful of 60 pounder guns. By 1918 it might have 18 pounder guns, 4.5" howitzers, 6" mortars, 9.45" mortars, plus attached batteries of 60 pounders, 6" howitzers, 8" howitzers and 9.2" howitzers, but it would also have a far more complex, flexible and redundant chain of communication that included photo-reconaissance, sound-ranging and massively increased map production.

Oh - forgot to mention fuses. Artillery shells and their fuses is almost another game in itself ...

[Doppler]

Doppler, just to make your job a bit more difficult, you might also consider gas and smoke shells

One step ahead of you! We plan to make the officer choose between Gas / Smoke / Normal when they decide to set their targets.

About the fuses, well I'm not sure we want to be too realistic as that would be sort of wasting time when you're wanting to achieve something on the battlefield. There is confusion around the Gas on the team and their colour. We have some evidence of them being Yellow/Green and others White/Yellow, can someone please confirm which is the correct one? Thanks!

[centurion]

One step ahead of you! We plan to make the officer choose between Gas / Smoke / Normal when they decide to set their targets.

Completely unrealistic and not done in this way. Gas and smoke use would be decided before hand as part of the barrage plan and supplies of the appropriate munitions assigned to particular batteries with carefully predefined targets. A large part of the British gas attack was carried out by one shot Livens projectors (a sort of simple mortar) which had to prepositioned on set targets and were fired in barrages before any attack was made. For fairly obvious reasons one didn't use gas where one's own troops would be advancing any time soon. To be effective smoke and gas have to be laid down (and constantly replenished) in some quantity. The main use of gas was to neutralise parts of enemy territory and smoke to conceal one's own movements.

[Robert Dunlop]

Doppler, what scale are you going to represent in the game? Will it focus on a section or platoon of men, like Joyeux Noel?

Robert

[centurion]

Doppler, what scale are you going to represent in the game? Will it focus on a section or platoon of men, like Joyeux Noel?

Robert

Because at that level the officer would have no real control of artillery. At best he could get a message back to his battalion HQ requesting additional support (my earlier example of 'held up by machine gun post' being the sort of thing) He'd probably have to do this by runner (who might or might not make it) and Battalion would decide what if anything to do about it. This could be to order the battalion's own trench mortars to fire on the obstacle or to request fire from the artillery supporting the battalion. Part of the decision would depend on a] the proximity of the obstacle to the unit (and the risk of hitting one's own men), b] the situation of other units (there might not be enough fire support to go around), c]The relative importance of that unit's role in the overall plan. Whatever the response it almost certainly would not be gas or smoke. The only example I've seen of gas being used on such a small tactical scale was a special gas unit being sent forward with a 2inch toffee apple mortar to lob gas into a group of buildings holding up an attack.

[Robert Dunlop]

Yes, that is why it is vitally important to establish the game type - first person shoot 'em up vs third person tactical (company-, battalion-, division- or whatever level). These are all very different in the way that artillery would be represented and handled from a gamer's perspective.

Robert

[centurion]

Just a thought - there is a successful hex board based game Red Poppies played by two people or two teams - which is set at company and platoon level - this may provide an idea of tactical possibilities - without plagiarism as your game is an entirely different medium.

[Doppler]

Doppler, what scale are you going to represent in the game? Will it focus on a section or platoon of men, like Joyeux Noel?

Robert

Yeah, it's primevally designed to be around a platoon of men against another which would allow game 'rounds' to last longer. Sure Centurion, it might be un-realistic but at the end of the day, this is a Game, not a film. We're wanting players to be able to experience the liberated side of battles and effects, however you're un-able to just Gas people constantly there is a mechanic behind it that balances it. The game isn't designed for 100% accuracy, it's more a tribunal artefact to make people more socially aware of World War I as we feel that the great war is completely ignored and people seem to be liberated by "WWII" which was nothing compared to the great war.